SynthesisDiabetes2008
Is the presence of retinopathy of practical value in defining cases of diabetic nephropathy in genetic association studies? The experience with the ACE insertion/deletion polymorphism in 53 studies comprising 17,791 subjects.
Synthesis in Diabetes, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Gene Polymorphisms among Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Retinopathy and Nephropathy.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Interaction of renin-angiotensin system gene polymorphisms with hypertension in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes and retinopathy.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Role of ACE and PAI-1 Polymorphisms in the Development and Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy.PloS one · 2015Article
- Candidate gene association study for diabetic retinopathy in persons with type 2 diabetes: the Candidate gene Association Resource (CARe).Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA key consideration when setting up genetic studies is the case definition. For diabetic nephropathy, the case definition is typically based on the presence of albuminuria. However, it has been long debated whether diabetic nephropathy cases defined in this way may have a high prevalence of nondiabetic kidney disease, especially if diabetic retinopathy is absent. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of 53 studies comprising 17,791 subjects investigating the angiotensin-I converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism, taking into account the requirement for diabetic retinopathy in the case definition and assuming a random-effects model.
resultsNo publication bias was observed. The overall pooled odds ratio (OR) for all 53 studies was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.87; P < 0.001), which indicated a significant protection against diabetic nephropathy for genotype II compared with carriage of the D-allele. The pooled OR for the 11 studies (n = 3,413) requiring diabetic retinopathy in the case definition was 0.68 (0.53-0.86; P = 0.002), and this was not significantly different from the pooled OR of 0.81 (0.71-0.92; P = 0.001) obtained from the 42 remaining studies (n = 14,378) (P = 0.198). This lack of any significant effect of diabetic retinopathy was reiterated in subgroup analyses based on the type of diabetes present.
conclusionsStipulating the presence of diabetic retinopathy in the case definition of diabetic nephropathy did not appear to confer tangible benefits when detecting genetic associations. Besides reducing sample sizes, this stipulation makes the interpretation of genetic associations more difficult due to the potential confounding presence of diabetic retinopathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.